Menu

Tag Archives: penile cancer

This year is the HPV vaccine’s 10th anniversary, as the first cervical cancer vaccine was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006. Should we celebrate or not? Arguably the HPV vaccine is one of the most controversial vaccines ever released…

In October 2015 I published the article: “The HPV vaccine controversy: science, media… and marketing”, where I included the information available on the vaccine, focusing on its safety and efficacy. A lot has happened since then, many articles have been published which, instead of clarifying the situation, have rather divided even more both the general public and the scientific community. The result: doctors hesitate to recommend the vaccine, parents and young women are even more confused when they have to decide whether to get vaccinated or not…

In this article I outline the recent events related to the HPV vaccine, focusing on new indications, safety statements and current controversies.

HPV-Associated Cancers are on rise

According to a new report from the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HPV-associated cancer incidence have increased from 10.8 per 100,000 persons during 2004–2008 to 11.7 per 100,000 persons during 2008–2012. The most common cancers are cervical and oropharyngeal (although not all oropharyngeal cancers are HPV-related).

HPV-related cancers still on the rise, despite a vaccine that could prevent them – CBS News https://t.co/0ZLHztwW5P

The report stresses that a large number of these cancers are associated with the HPV types included in the vaccine, thus vaccination may potentially reduce the incidence of cancer in the future.

The same trend is observed in other countries such as the UK: while the incidence rates of cervical cancer for women aged 25-34 initially decreased by 35% between 1985-1987 and 2000-2002, rates have since increased by 50% in this age group.

More medical societies urge to increase HPV vaccination rates

Despite many professional organisations recommending HPV vaccination, vaccine uptake in the United States remains low: about 39% of girls and 21% of boys have received the full schedule of HPV vaccines.

Taking into consideration these data, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recently issued a statement urging to increase vaccination rates. In this article “ASCO stresses (…) the need to increase the proportion of adolescent boys and girls receiving the HPV vaccine (…) which could lead to complete eradication of HPV-related cancers in men and women”. They further emphasize its safety by stating that “Both Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines reported excellent short- and long-term safety results in clinical trials”.

But some issues in the ASCO statement have been questioned, namely the “complete eradication of HPV-related cancers” (as none of the available vaccines is 100% effective), and the “excellent safety results”, as worldwide reports of adolescents with chronic side effects after HPV vaccination continue to be published (see below). In addition, the report does not mention anything about screening tests (Pap smears), which are an indispensable tool for preventing cancer by early detection of precancerous lesions.

Changes in the HPV vaccination schedule

The CDC recently published the new 2016 recommended immunization schedule for children and adolescents. The schedule for HPV vaccination introduces the ninevalent (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females. While females may receive any of the three available vaccine types: 9vHPV (Gardasil 9), 4-valent (Gardasil) or 2-valent (Cervarix), only Gardasil 9 or Gardasil may be used for males.

The CDC also states that HPV vaccine should be administered beginning at age 9 years to children and youth with any history of sexual abuse or assault who have not initiated or completed the 3-dose series.

More studies confirming reduction in the prevalence of HPV, cervical abnormalities and genital warts

Reduction of HPV prevalence

An American study confirms previous observations of HPV vaccine impact: within 6 years of vaccine introduction, there was a 64% decrease in the four HPV types included in the vaccine among females aged 14 to 19 years and a 34% decrease among those aged 20 to 24 years.

Decrease in condylomas in women and men

In Denmark, girls and young women have been vaccinated since 2008. A recent study shows a significant reduction in the incidence of genital warts, not only in women, but also in men, This means that the vaccine has caused what is called herd immunity. The study concludes: “The reduction is seen in both women up to 35 years of age and men aged 12 to 29 years, suggesting that HPV vaccination is highly efficient and that herd protection has developed.”

Reduction of abnormal Pap tests in high-risk patients

A new study demonstrated the HPV vaccine is effective in a real-world setting of high-risk patients (low-income females, engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors) many of whom had not completed the HPV vaccine schedule.

After following 4127 girls and young women from 11 through 20 years of age who underwent Pap smears, they found that abnormal cytology was less common in vaccinated vs unvaccinated females (8 vs 13 % respectively). The risk was lower if the 3-dose vaccine series was completed or if the vaccine was administered from 11 through 14 years of age.

The European Medicines Agency concludes HPV vaccine is safe

In my previous article, I mentioned that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) would conduct a safety review of HPV vaccines, mainly due to the numerous reports on severe side effects, not only in lay media, but also in medical journals. The main concern was the occurrence of two particular syndromes, namely complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) (see here for more details), suspected to be related with HPV vaccination.

The long awaited EMA review was published in November 2015, and concluded that “the evidence does not support that HPV vaccines (Cervarix, Gardasil, Gardasil 9, Silgard) cause CRPS or POTS. The benefits of HPV vaccines continue to outweigh their risks”. Read their press release here.

After this review, a World Health Organization – Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine safety (GAVCS)Statement on Safety of HPV vaccines followed in December 2015, which declares ” The GACVS has systematically investigated safety concerns raised about HPV vaccines and has issued several reports in this regard. To date, it has not found any safety issue that would alter its recommendations for the use of the vaccine”. The statement refers specifically to CRPS and POTS, but also to the increased incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome found in a French study (see my previous article).

It was Denmark that had requested the safety review of HPV vaccines from the EMA, as this country, with a high vaccine uptake, reported that more than 1300 girls and young women with chronic symptoms (POTS, CRPS) have been referred to specialized centers.

Not convinced with EMA’s conclusion, Denmark is conducting its own investigation into the issue. The Ministry of Heath has given 7 million DKK (US$1.01 million) for research leaded by specialists who are seeing girls with symptoms after HPV vaccination and who are independent of the pharmaceutical industry.

Recently, the reputed Nordic Cochrane Centre filed a complaint to the EMA expressing their concern about EMA’s handling of the HPV vaccine safety issue.

The Nordic group says that the EMA report is flawed, and points out several issues. Briefly:

The EMA has concluded that there is no causal link between CRPS / POTS and the HPV vaccine, but the Nordic Cochrane group says “The EMA’s official report gives the impression of a unanimous rejection of the suspected harms. However, the EMA’s internal report (…) tells a very different story. This “internal report is confidential but has been leaked,” the group notes, and it “reveals that several experts had the opinion that the vaccine might not be safe and called for further research, but there was nothing about this in the official report.”

“The EMA asked thepharmaceuticalcompanies to search for side effects of the vaccine in their own databases and did not check the companies’ work for accuracy,” they say. They also allege that their criteria to consider cases as POTS were extremely restrictive: “In the search for cases coded as POTS (…) almost half (40 cases) are dismissed for not meeting the case definition for POTS”. “This is extraordinary, as the companies have a huge vested interest in not finding these possible harms in their databases,” the Nordic group comments.

Another issue is the placebo that was used in the clinical trials of HPV vaccines. “In all the vaccine trials apart from a small one, the control group was given a placebo that contained an aluminium adjuvant, which is suspected of being neurotoxic,” they note. The group quotes information contained in the leaked internal documents: “Initially, the vaccine was compared with a placebo group being vaccinated with physiological serum, whereby the number of adverse reactions was much higher and much more serious than in the control group. After comparing 320 patients in the saline placebo group, a quick move was made to an aluminium-containing placebo, in order to be able to only evaluate the effects of the active substance. However, this distorted the comparison (…)”. “We believe this constitutes scientific misconduct,” the Nordic group says.

The group highlights the “extreme levels of secrecy” that surround the EMA review process, in which experts who are involved in the process are not named and are bound by lifelong secrecy about what was discussed. Nordic Cochrane argues that instead, all documents involving HPV vaccination safety should be made publicly available.

They also question whether EMA has behaved fairly, in particular towards Dr. Louise Brinth, the Danish whistle-blower who first described cases of POTS in the medical literature, as EMA accuses her to report on “a sample of patients, apparently chosen to fit a pre-specified hypothesis of vaccine-induced injury”. The Nordic group concludes “We find that the EMA’s comments are unprofessional, misleading, inappropriate and pejorative, and that the EMA’s approach (…) is unscientific”.

Dr Brinth, who cosigns the Nordic Cochrane complaint, has published her own 63-page response to the EMA review (it’s really worth a read).

The situation in Japan

Japan puts in place a scheme to manage symptoms after HPV vaccination

Japan has put in place a schemeto manage symptoms, especially generalized chronic pain, that have arisen after HPV vaccination. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of symptoms that begin after HPV vaccine injection were issued to healthcare professionals and approved by the Japan Medical Association and the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences.

Class action lawsuit filed against Japanese government and vaccine manufacturers

Sixty-three women and girls who reported side effects from cervical cancer vaccines sued the Japanese government and drugmakers. “More plaintiffs are expected to join the suit “, The Japan Times recently reported. According to the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2,945 of the 3.39 million women who had received the vaccines, or 0.09 percent, have reported side effects.

Scientist accuses WHO, GAVCS, CDC of misconduct

In an open letter of complaint to the World Health Organization (WHO), Japanese Dr. Sin Hang Lee expresses concerns regarding the conduct of certain members of GACVS, WHO, CDC and other scientific/health professionals. “I have come into possession of documentation which leads me to believe multiple individuals and organizations deliberately set out to mislead Japanese authorities regarding the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix”, he writes. In his letter he explains that there is at least one known mechanism of action explaining why serious adverse reactions occur more often in people injected with HPV vaccines than other vaccines, and why certain predisposed individuals may suffer a sudden unexplained death as a result, but he alleges that this information was deliberately “ignored” by the experts.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) issued a statement in January 2016 warning of a potential relationship between Primary Ovarian Failure and HPV vaccination.

“It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause“, they report.

They further state that, although most physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between the HPV vaccine and POF, and may not consider reporting cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 213 cases were reported. When the cases are more carefully chosen: “86/89 cases are associated with Gardasil, 3/89 with Cervarix, and 0/89 with other vaccines administered independently of an HPV vaccine. Using the same criteria, there are only 7 reports of amenorrhea from 1990 through 2005″.

“While there is no strong evidence of a causal relationship between HPV4 and ovarian dysfunction, this information should be public knowledge for physicians and patients considering these vaccines”, they conclude.

A possible association between ovarian problems and the HPV vaccine had been already reported by Dr Deirdre Little, an Australian gynecologist:

It should be mentioned that the ACP statement, as well as Dr. Little’s research have been heavily criticizedby other physicians.

Conclusions

I was hoping that, with the new available information on the HPV vaccine safety, I could reach a conclusion on how to counsel, as a physician, young women and mothers asking me whether to get the HPV vaccine or not. I was expecting to have a thorough review stating loud and clear the HPV vaccine expected benefits vs. the documented risks. Unfortunately, no conclusion can be easily drawn so far. It is extremely difficult to find a balance between the scientific evidence -with studies not always well-designed-, the experts’ opinions and the increasing criticism surrounding this vaccine.

While most professional societies urge us to promote vaccination, the constant reports on serious side effects coming from all around the globe cannot be ignored. It’s unfortunate to see a woman dying of a cancer that could have been prevented, but it is equally heart-breaking to see a healthy teenager, full of life, suddenly prostrated in a wheelchair…

I have no doubt that vaccines are an invaluable public health tool against fatal diseases, and it’s imperative that we all continue to believe in vaccines. However, it’s my opinion that the HPV vaccine in particular deserves further study.

The unanswered questions are too many, not only about potential risks, but also about potential benefits. Therefore, I believe that further independent research is urgently warranted – not just in Denmark, but worldwide. With more than 175 millions vaccine doses distributedin 63 countries, it is certain that a coordinated, global effort would shed light on some aspects of this controversial vaccine.

Acknowledgement

I am genuinely grateful to Ms Caron Ryalls, who kindly contacted me and provided me with some of the information presented here.

The HPV vaccine has been around for almost 10 years and more than 175 millions doses have been distributedin 63 countries, with several studies confirming its safety and efficacy. In spite of that, the vaccine still remains a subject of controversy. Although recommended by most scientific societies worldwide, some recent reports questioning its safety fuelled even more the debate, dividing both general public and medical community.

In this article we will analyse the existing evidence regarding the HPV vaccine, with particular focus on its efficacy and safety. In order to organise the available information, the article will be divided into the following sections:

Getting to know HPV

Why a vaccine? The burden of HPV-related diseases

The three available HPV vaccines

Vaccination schedule and timing

Efficacy of the HPV vaccine

Safety of the HPV vaccine

Recent safety concerns: the chronicle of events

Other debatable issues

Unanswered questions…

Conclusion

1. Getting to know HPV

HPV (human papillomavirus) is a virus and is transmitted from person to person through skin-to-skin contact.

HPV infection is extremely common, and most of the times it will be cleared by the immune system.

Of the over 100 types of HPV, about 12 subtypes of the HPV (mostly subtypes 6 and 11) may cause genital warts (also known as condylomas). These so-called “low-risk types” can also cause a rare condition called recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, in which warts grow in the throat.

Approximately 15 types of HPV (most commonly types 16 and 18) are related to cancer. While cervical cancer is the most common HPV-related cancer, this virus can also cause other cancers: vulvar, vaginal, anal and oropharyngeal (mouth and throat), as well as penile cancer in men.

2. Why a vaccine? The burden of HPV-related diseases

These figures will give you and idea of the magnitude of the problems caused by HPV:

-Worldwide, over 500,000 new cervical cancer cases are diagnosed annually. Cervical cancer ranks as the 4th cause of female cancer in the world and is the 2nd most common female cancer in women aged 15 to 44 years (1).

In the United States, an estimated 26,000 new cancers are attributable to HPV each year, about 17,000 in women and 9,000 in men (2) .

In Europe, about 58,000 new cases of HPV-related cancers are estimated to occur every year (3).

-Regarding precancerous lesions, the estimated annual burden of high-grade precancerous lesions ranges between 280,000 and 550,000 new cases per year in Europe (4).

-In addition to cancers and precancerous lesions, the problem of genital warts should also be taken into consideration. Genital warts are very common: 1 out of 10 persons will have condylomas at some point in their lives (the frequency varies according to different countries between 0,3 and 12 %) (5). About 800,000 new annual genital warts cases are estimated to occur in women and men in Europe (4). Although not life-threatening, the costs derived from their treatment and their psychological burden should not be neglected.

3. The three available HPV vaccines

From 2006, 2 vaccines have been available: One bivalent (Cervarix®), directed against HPV types 16 and 18, responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers and other HPV-associated cancers; the other quadrivalent (Gardasil® of Silgard® in different countries) containing 4 HPV types:16 and 18, together with HPV 6 and 11 which are responsible for more than 90% of genital warts.

In December 2014, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a nine-valent vaccine, Gardasil 9® (6), which, besides the 4 strains contained in Gardasil (i.e., 6,11,16,18), includes types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, responsible for an additional 20% of HPV-related cancers (4). Gardasil 9 has also been recently approved for commercialisation in Europe (7).

4. Vaccination schedule and timing

Vaccines are given as a 3-dose series, Gardasil at 0, 2 and 6 months, Cervarix at 0, 1 and 6 months (8).

In the States, The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that girls be routinely vaccinated at age 11 or 12 years.

Since 2010 boys have been included in the vaccination schedule in the USA, with the same schedule as girls.

If not vaccinated when they were younger, girls/young women and boys/young men should be vaccinated through age 26 (9).

A reduced, 2-dose schedule is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for those aged 9-13years; this schedule is not recommended by the ACIP but it has been adopted by many countries.

Earlier vaccination (before age 14) results in higher immune response. Another argument in favor of early vaccination is the fact that vaccines are more effective before the onset of sexual activity (8).

Vaccination is recommended regardless of sexual activity or known HPV infection. Although vaccines seem to be less effective in sexually active people, some benefit is expected to be attained since exposure to all types of HPV included in the vaccines is very unlikely. Testing for HPV is NOT recommended before vaccination.

The vaccines are prophylactic, that is, they do not prevent progression of existing infection to disease or treat existing disease. (2)

The HPV vaccine is covered by most private health insurance and government insurance programs worldwide. Vaccinations schedules may vary in different countries.

There seems to be additional protection by the vaccine in women through age 45, as showed by certain studies (11). However, there is no recommendation for vaccination in individuals aged 26 to 45.

The same schedule applies for Gardasil 9 (0, 2 and 6 months). Revaccination with the nine-valent vaccine is not recommended in persons who previously completed the three-dose series with the bivalent or or quadrivalent HPV vaccine (8).

5. Efficacy of the HPV vaccine

The ultimate goal of the HPV vaccine is to reduce the incidence of HPV-related cancers. For obvious ethical reasons, the endpoint set to evaluate the HPV vaccine efficacy in different studies was precancerous lesions, namely CIN 2 and 3 (high risk lesions of the cervix, with potential to evolve to cancer). Other efficacy endpoints evaluated were incidence of HPV infection and incidence of condylomas.

Studies conducted before licensure showed that both vaccines achieved a high level of protection: 98-100% for the HPV types included in the vaccine in a naive population (that is, women who did not have HPV 16 or 18 at the time of vaccination), although the protection against precancerous lesions was 30-40% in the total vaccinated cohort (which included women who did not finish their immunization plan, or that were already infected with the virus before vaccination) (12, 13, 14, 15). There was also cross-protection for other types of HPV (i.e., HPV 45 and 31), which was more intense with Cervarix (16).

The impact of vaccination on the general population has also been analysed in some studies. Australia was the first country to introduce an organised HPV vaccination program, achieving one of the world’s highest vaccination compliance rates. Since 2007, when the National HPV vaccination program started with the quadrivalent vaccine, HPV infections from the types included in the vaccine decreased from 29% to 7% (17); a 93% reduction in the diagnosis of genital warts was also observed (18). Moreover, other recent studies showed an almost 50% reduction of high-grade cervical precancerous lesions in women who had received all required doses of the vaccine (19).

Denmark also counts with an organised vaccination program. Six years after licensure of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, a reduction of cervical precancerous lesions was observed, which was 80% in younger patients (20).

Recently, a study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the nine-valent vaccine. Gardasil 9 prevented 97% of high-grade precancerous lesions of the cervix, vulva, and vagina caused by the five new high-risk HPV types (HPV31/33/45/52/58) (21). The nine-valent vaccine also generated immune responses to HPV6/11/16/18 that were as good as or better than those generated by the quadrivalent vaccine. (4, 22)

6. Safety of the HPV vaccine

Many studies have evaluated HPV vaccine safety, both before their commercialisation and post-release, which demonstrated no differences in side effects as compared to control groups, irrespective of age and ethnicity (23).

According to the CDC, the most commonly reported side effects of the vaccines are:

Pain, redness, or swelling in the arm where the shot was given

Fever

Headache or feeling tired

Nausea

Muscle or joint pain

Fainting (also known as syncope) and related symptoms (such as jerking movements) is not uncommon (24), especially in teenagers. For that reason, it is recommended that people receiving the HPV vaccine sit or lie down during vaccination, and remain seated for 15 minutes after the shot. (23)

Considering the target age of vaccination (which includes women in reproductive age), pregnancy outcomes received special attention. Noincrease in miscarriage rates has been reported for either of the vaccines (25). In addition, pregnant women that were recorded and observed in registrative trials did not have increased rate of congenital abnormalities (26, 27, 24).

Studies have also demonstrated efficacy and safety of the vaccines in men, both in heterosexual and men who have sex with men (28).

Serious side effects are very rare (less than 0.5%) (29), the most common being persistent headache, hypertension, gastroenteritis, bronchospasm and anaphylaxis. Their reported incidence is similar to that of other compulsory vaccines types (30).

Certain side effects have been a matter of concern since the introduction of the vaccine, namely autoimmune diseases (AD) (i.e., hypothyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, Behçet’s syndrome, Raynaud’s disease, type 1 diabetes, and vitiligo), neurological disorders (such as epilepsy, paralysis, Guillain–Barré syndrome, central demyelination, and multiple sclerosis) and venous thromboembolism (a blood clot that plugs a vein). It should be mentioned that ADs are not rare in adolescents and young adults, particularly in women. Therefore, it is a real challenge to distinguish causal from temporal association. A recent study gathered the results of 9 large studies (of which one was an analysis of 42 trials together, or metanalysis) in order to investigate severe adverse reactions after the HPV vaccine. None of the included studies found evidence of increased risk of autoimmune disease, neurological disorder, or venous thromboembolism (31).

The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), established by the World Health Organization (WHO) provides independent, scientifically rigorous advice on vaccine-safety issues. In December 2013, the committee reviewed different topics and considered all available evidence on the safety of HPV vaccines, and concluded that both commercially available vaccines are safe (32). Likewise, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Gynecologic Oncologic Committee and Subcommittee for Cervical Cancer Prevention support the continued administration of the HPV vaccines in appropriate populations (33).

7. Recent safety concerns: the chronicle of events

Although some isolated cases of side effects had been described in UK and Australia (34), Japan was the first country reporting on several girls suffering from severe pain and disability; these cases were heavily publicised in newspapers, TV news and social media, but they also alarmed the medical community. Japanese physicians published later on a series of 44 girls who were diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome(CRPS) (35). Due to these concerns, in June 2013 the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) decided to suspend its active recommendation of HPV vaccination. This decision created intense debate among scientists and general public, which continues until nowadays (34).

In March 2015, Denmark‘s TV channel TV2 aired a documentary entitled The Vaccinated Girls – Sick and Betrayed. The journalists gathered about 60 girls from all over Denmark who became sick shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine. Among the doctors interviewed is Louise Brinth, who examined approximately 80 girls with similar symptoms potentially caused by the HPV vaccine. Dr. Brinth noted that the girls experience symptoms such as dizziness, passing out, and severe headaches. She said, “They have abdominal pain and nausea. They have weird muscle movements they cannot control. And they’re very tired… We see a pattern that screams to heaven, and that should be examined by some solid research.”

In April 2015, Dr. Brinth reported in a scientific journal on 53 patients complaining of orthostatic intolerance, severe headache, excessive fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, gastrointestinal discomfort and widespread pain. Most of them were diagnosed with a rare syndrome known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and all of them were in close temporal association with the HPV vaccine (36a, 36b).

Denmark’s documentary has had a huge impact worldwide, both in the general public and the medical community. A closed Facebook page set up for suspected victims of adverse reactions to Gardasil in Denmark tripled its -careful verified- members; similar Facebook groups were created in other countries.

At the request of Denmark, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is currently conducting a safety review of HPV vaccines. However, the agency emphasizes that this review “does not question that the benefits of HPV vaccines outweigh their risks.”The agency also notes that while the review is being carried out, no change in the use of these products is recommended. See the EMA’s review conclusions here.

Mrs Ryalls reported Emily’s symptoms to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and she was not alone: adverse reactions after HPV vaccination numbered 8,228, of which 2,587 were classified as “serious”; that’s substantially more that those reported with other compulsory vaccines (see graph). The MHRA, though, said it had no concerns on the numbers of adverse reactions related to the HPV vaccine and that the “expected benefits in preventing illness and death from HPV infection outweigh the known risks”.

As stated by the newspaper “This article created significant debate among medical professionals, journalists and members of the public…”.

In France, the National Security Agency of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM) just published (September 2015) the results of the follow-up of more than 2 million girls aged 13-16 years, vaccinated between 2008 and 2013 to evaluate the occurrence of side effects, mainly autoimmune diseases. When analysed all the diseases together, their results showed no overall increased risk of occurrence of serious events. However, when each disease was analysed individually, a four-fold increase in the occurrence of Guillain Barre syndrome was observed. The study also found an increased risk of Inflammatory Bowel disease, but the association was weak.

The authors conclude: “…the results of the study… prove reassuring regarding the risk of autoimmune disease associated with the HPV vaccines. The expected benefits of this vaccination in terms of public health are far greater than the eventual risks the girls may be exposed to” (37). In spite of these “reassuring” results, the vaccination rate in France continue to be low (less than 30%).

In September 2015, another report provided details on 45 individuals from 13 countries who developed a chronic ailment soon after receiving the HPV vaccine. “A disabling syndrome of chronic neuropathic pain, vexing fatigue, and profound autonomic dysfunction may appear after HPV vaccination,” say the authors, headed by Manuel Martínez-Lavín, MD, a specialist in chronic pain conditions from Mexico City. After a mean period of 4 years following HPV vaccination, 93% of individuals “continue to have incapacitating symptoms and remain unable to attend school or work,” write the authors (38).

POTSafter HPV vaccination has also been reported in the United States. Dr. Blitshteyn, a neurologist from New York, described six patients who developed POTS between 6 days and 2 months after HPV vaccination. All patients reported improvement over 3 years, but residual symptoms persisted (39).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emphasised that controlled clinical trials in tens of thousands of individuals plus postlicensure monitoring of millions of individuals have found no causal association between HPV vaccination and atypical pain syndromes or autonomic dysfunction.

Dr. Diane Harper, an american obstetrician & gynecologist, is one of the HPV experts called in to design the clinical trials of Gardasil and Cervarix. Although initially in favour of the vaccine, in recent years she has questioned Gardasil safety. She stated that “Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year”. Moreover, in an article published in December 2009 she concluded that, given the various limitations and risks of the vaccines, the beneﬁts and risks of HPV vaccination must be weighed with the beneﬁts and risks of HPV screening (Pap smears) to reduce cervical cancer in a cost-effective manner (40).

Dr. Harper does not support mandatory HPV vaccination for schoolchildren, because she believes that the duration of protection may be too short (see below). She has also criticised the short period of time vaccines were tried before its licensure, and the misleading publicity carried out by the pharmaceutical companies. Learn more here.

8. Other debatable issues

Vaccination in boys

The rationale of vaccinating boys is to reduce the transmission of the HPV virus to women and to protect them against oral and anal cancers (41). Since these cancers are very rare, it has been questioned by some scientists whether is it worth to expose millions of boys to potential vaccine side effects in order to protect girls, or to prevent a so rare type of cancer (responsible for just 300 deaths in the USA); whether the benefit outweighs the risk and if men vaccination is cost effective. While countries such as Australia and the USA include boys in their vaccine recommendations, other countries (i.e., UK and France) have not yet adopted this measure.

Men who have sex with men are a special category, since they are at higher risk of anal cancer. Thus, some experts believe these men (and not every boy) should be offered the vaccine. However, this measure may be difficult to implement: in order get covered by their insurance or social security, young men may be required to declare their sexual preferences.

Immunogenicity of Gardasil vs. Cervarix

Immunogenicity means the ability of the vaccine to provoke an immune response; in other words, the “strength” of the vaccine.

Most countries adopted vaccination with Gardasil instead of Cervarix assuming equal protection for cancer, with the “bonus” protection against genital warts. But is it really like this?

Several studies have demonstrated that Cervarix elicits stronger and longer-lasting immune response than Gardasil (42, 43).

These laboratory findings have also been confirmed by some clinical studies: Over the years, the efficacy of the Cervarix to protect vaccinated women from precancerous lesions (total vaccinated cohort-naive) was 93%, while Gardasil’s dropped to 43% (44)

Age of vaccination

This subject has also raised intense debate and concern. As stated above, immune response provoked by the vaccines may be of limited duration, especially for Gardasil. This can be a serious limitation of the vaccine because, as Dr. Harper noted “… if the HPV vaccine does not last for at least 15 years, no cancers will ever be prevented; women will just get the cancers at a later time in life after the vaccine has worn off“.

If this short protection span is confirmed by clinical studies, a boost dose would solve this limitation. However, this would increase considerably the cost of the vaccine; moreover, women who don’t comply with this recommendation will become unprotected over time.

Increase of promiscuity?

Many people feared that the the HPV vaccine would lead girls to promiscuous behavior. This was actually investigated by some studies, and have proved not to be true: no increase in sexually transmitted diseases was observed among vaccinated girls (45), showing that vaccination is unlikely to promote unsafe sexual activity.

9. Unanswered questions…

In light of the latest publications, should vaccination programs be halted until the situations is clarified?

Due to these latest concerns, will more women opt for no vaccination, missing the opportunity to be protected against cancer?

Since the syndromes potentially related to vaccines are difficult to diagnose, is it possible that they have been underreported in the past? Could they possibly become over reported in the future?

Will the vaccine create a false sense of full protection against cervical cancer, resulting in less women attending screening programs?

Will the vaccine lead to a reduction of the HPV types included in the vaccine, but to an increase of those not included in the vaccine?

10. Conclusion

It is indeed exciting to have a vaccine that protects against cancer. After seeing women dying from cervical cancer, I truly wish that cervical cancer will be eradicated in the future. But we MUST be sure that we don’t create more harm than good in the process.

I am in favor of vaccines. Vaccines have done a lot of good to humanity (just imagine if we would still have small pox, or poliomyelitis…). It is true that every single medical practice may come with side effects, and this include vaccines. But we MUST know exactly what are the vaccine risks, and whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

I firmly believe that governments, scientific societies and pharmaceutical companies MUST do an effort to inform people in a responsible and honest manner, so that all of us -young people, parents and physicians- continue to believe in good science, and vaccines don’t lose their credibility.

It will take 10 to 20 years to figure out the true benefit of the HPV vaccine. In the meantime, keep in mind that Pap tests never killed anyone, on the contrary, they have saved millions of lives. Therefore, don’t forget your Pap smear!